The court held that anticipatory bail for caste-based offences is inappropriate when the victim is a government official on duty, and evidence indicates the accused persisted in obstructive and discriminatory conduct in public view after being presented with official identification documentation.

ORDER :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned Vacation Judge, Dumka in A.B.P. No. 394 of 2024, arising out of Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 126(2), 352, 115(2), 109(1), 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S and Section 3(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by which, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.

2. As per FIR, it has been alleged that while the informant was going to Basukinath for his duty as Magistrate during Shrawani Mela on 28.07.2024 and reached between Nandi Chowk and Kalamunch thus his vehicle was overtaken by three motorcycle borne miscreants including the appellants and started altercating with him regarding blowing of horn and when he showed his pass then all three miscreants started abusing him in the name of his caste and threatened him not to move forward and when informant tried to take photograph of their motorcycles then murderous attack was made upon him by means of dangerous weapons and when he somehow managed to reach near Forest Guest House those miscreants followed him there also however, he was saved by other officials and security force.

3. Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, learned APP for the State and Ms. Anjali Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in this case due to personal grudge of the informant. It is submitted that allegations levelled in the FIR against the appellants are false and concocted story has been developed subsequently. It is submitted that it is improbable that appellants would dare to assault the Administrative Officer of the State. It is submitted that the appellants are not named in the FIR and their name has come in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Mangal Singh @ Vivek Kumar. It is further submitted that the appellants were not aware of the designation and caste of the informant at the time of alleged assault and as such the provision of SC/ST Act will not be applicable on them. It is submitted that in order to implicate them under the provisions of SC/ST Act, it must be proved that the appellants were aware of the caste of the informant, while abusing them in the name of caste. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in the case of “ Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2018) 1 SCC 742 (at paragraph nos. 7 & 9), in the case of “Dinesh @ Buddha vs. State of Rajasthan” reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 (at paragraph no.15) and also in the case of “Ramdas & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170 (at paragraph no.11). It is submitted that the appellants are simple persons and they are earning their livelihood by serving some puja articles. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation against these two appellants for abusing and assaulting the informant. It is submitted that the main accused person Mangal Singh @ Vivek Kumar was arrested by the Police on spot and he has been granted a regular bail by the learned Court below vide order dated 29.08.2024. It is submitted that the informant namely, Shishir Tigga and othe